550 N.E.2d 949
No. 88-2070Supreme Court of Ohio.Submitted December 13, 1989 —
Decided February 28, 1990.
Certification of questions of state law from federal courts — Supreme Court declines to answer certified question, when.
ON ORDER from the United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, Certifying Questions of State Law, No. C85-1281.
Respondent, John M. Riestenberg, filed a complaint in federal district court in 1985 seeking money damages from petitioner, Broadview Savings and Loan Company. Respondent alleged that he had received a mortgage loan from petitioner to buy a home, that petitioner had the home appraised and charged respondent for the appraisal, that one of petitioner’s loan officers represented that the home was adequate security for the loan, that the home had a severely damaged foundation, and that petitioner knew or should have known of the defect.
Petitioner moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted, and the district court granted the motion. Respondent appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. That court recognized that there was no controlling Ohio law on this point, but applied the law as it predicted this court would apply it and, on April 27, 1988, reversed the district court’s order and remanded the case.
On July 15, 1988, we adopted Rule XVI of the Supreme Court Rules of Practice, permitting certification of issues to this court. (38 Ohio St. 3d at xliii.) On November 25, 1988, the district court certified the following question:
“* * * whether a lender is liable in contract or tort to a borrower for negligence in conducting an appraisal for the purpose of determining whether to make the loan for the purchase of the property appraised.”
Thereafter, the parties filed their briefs and, on November 15, 1989, we
Page 134
granted the motion of the Ohio Savings and Loan League to file a brief amicus curiae.
John D. Wheeler, for petitioner.
John M. Riestenberg, pro se.
Vorys, Sater, Seymour Pease and Steven W. Mershon, for amicus curiae.
Per Curiam.
Having considered all the arguments in the case, we, nevertheless, exercise our discretion under Sections 1 and 9 of Rule XVI of the Supreme Court Rules of Practice and decline to answer the question. Since the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has given its answer, we believe it would be inappropriate to intervene between the federal appellate and district courts. This decision does not preclude the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals from seeking our opinion should this case again reach it on appeal.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, H. BROWN and RESNICK, JJ., concur.